Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Cybertruck is not brutalist

inverse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 187 posts

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#31

Post by [deleted] »

arbitrage wrote: post #15
msla wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Behold the power of a mistranslation: > The term ‘brutalism’ was coined by the British architects Alison and Peter Smithson, and popularised by the architectural historian Reyner Banham in 1954. It derives from ‘Béton brut’ (raw concrete) and was first associated in architecture with Le Corbusier, who designed the Cite Radieuse in Marseilles in the late-1940s. But since the word can be used as an insult in English, i…

linguistic shift. meanings and etymologies can drift over time. in english, in the modern age, brutalist implies brutality.

[deleted]

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#33

Post by topspin »

jessriedel wrote: post #28

tl;dr: The Cybertruck is not brutalist because it's designers do not promote the same politics as brutalist architects: > But Banham and his fellow brutalists had a purpose behind their intense design, something more than just a building. > And on this, Pasnik, argues, the two groups — Brutalists and Tesla designers — couldn’t be more different.... > “The truck is consumerist, whereas brutalism’s monumentality is civ…

That truck has induced an inordinate amount of navel-gazing.

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#34

Post by remarkEon »

Kind of off topic but:

> Mark Pasnik is a founding principal of the Boston-based design firm OverUnder and a professor of architecture at Wentworth Institute of Technology.

If you go to the OverUnder website, the proposal to “revamp” the existing Boston City Hall is just an admonition that brutalism sucks and is miserable to be around.

> The design creates vibrant counterpoints of light and liveliness to City Hall's monumental framework. It proposes a series of tactical modifications to the building's lowest and most public levels: clarifying way-finding; improving views, light, and sustainability; occupying abandoned spaces; and increasing the building's openness to the city.

> Daylight from the atrium would stream downward into what is presently a dark hall. Light globes, colorful wall panels, and illuminated information screens would create an animated atmosphere.

So, adding in all the things brutalism is not. Guys. Just tear the thing down. No amount of aesthetic improvements will make people like that place.

http://overunder.co/work/architectural/Boston-City-Hall

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#35

Post by endorphone »

loa_in_ wrote: post #8

As a person with personal interest in visual arts I never have seen the appeal of appearance of many popular "great looking" cars of today's variety. Even muscle cars and luxury models. Cars up to 70's and 80's were really nice and aesthetically pleasing, and I find the Elon Musk's vision to be really nice and refreshing. It might be that I'm partial to science fiction in general, but I really would like to see this…

"As a person with personal interest in visual arts"

With all due respects, isn't this an entirely meaningless saying? Everyone has an interest in aesthetics and visual appeal, and has a subjective opinion on what they find appealing. We are a social species so invariably people infect each other's opinion so we have trends and movements towards/from opinions, but everyone has equal legitimacy in their opinion on this.

As to the CyberTrck it's worth noting that its design seems a restriction of material limitations rather than an intentional pursuit. As with the Delorean before, they started with the conclusion that they would use stainless steel and virtually every design decision was bound by that beginning.

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#36

Post by no_flags »

Kind of reminds me of this copypasta that has become a meme in the emo music scene:

"Real Emo" only consists of the dc Emotional Hardcore scene and the late 90's Screamo scene. What is known by "Midwest Emo" is nothing but Alternative Rock with questionable real emo influence. When people try to argue that bands like My Chemical Romance are not real emo, while saying that Sunny Day Real Estate is, I can't help not to cringe because they are just as fake emo as My Chemical Romance (plus the pretentiousness). Real emo sounds ENERGETIC, POWERFUL and somewhat HATEFUL. Fake emo is weak, self pity and a failed attempt to direct energy and emotion into music. Some examples of REAL EMO are Pg 99, Rites of Spring, Cap n Jazz (the only real emo band from the midwest scene) and Loma Prieta. Some examples of FAKE EMO are American Football, My Chemical Romance and Mineral EMO BELONGS TO HARDCORE NOT TO INDIE, POP PUNK, ALT ROCK OR ANY OTHER MAINSTREAM GENRE

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#37

Post by et2o »

thaeli wrote: post #20
andrewflnr wrote: post #9

Brutalist philosophy always sounds cool with its honesty and showing of how it works. But then you look at what it actually produces and it's usually, you know, brutal. If brutalist architects could just find it in their hearts to make their buildings have nice shapes along with all the other properties, maybe they wouldn't be so reviled.

There are exceptions. The Washington DC Metro, for instance.

Regenstein Library at U of Chicago too

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#39

Post by et2o »

jessriedel wrote: post #28

tl;dr: The Cybertruck is not brutalist because it's designers do not promote the same politics as brutalist architects: > But Banham and his fellow brutalists had a purpose behind their intense design, something more than just a building. > And on this, Pasnik, argues, the two groups — Brutalists and Tesla designers — couldn’t be more different.... > “The truck is consumerist, whereas brutalism’s monumentality is civ…

Except all the first brutalist buildings were single family homes lol.

Re: The Cybertruck is not brutalist

#40

Post by sintaxi »

cagenut wrote: post #25
et2o wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention a major motivation for electric vehicles is the public good and preservation of the public realm.

its better to think of it more as public harm reduction than public "good"

If people didn't see vehicles as a net positive compared to the alternative they wouldn't own them.
Post reply on HN